Community News

Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, was out campaigning in support of Amendment 66 on Oct. 30. Johnston, who was the legislative force behind the hybrid tax hike and school-finance measure known as Senate Bill 213, by noon Wednesday had already attended meetings with business leaders, educators and his team to address next steps. (Cyrus McCrimmon, The Denver Post)

On the morning after Colorado voters took a sledgehammer to Amendment 66, everyone seemed to be picking through the wreckage to see what could be salvaged, what's best left on the scrap heap — and what message to take away from the demolition.

Educators took a hard look at where defeat of the measure left them, legislators calculated how to move forward, and observers on both sides of the issue interpreted what the public really meant by its resounding "No."

Democratic state Sen. Mike Johnston, the legislative force behind the hybrid tax hike and school-finance measure called Senate Bill 213, by noon Wednesday had already attended meetings with business leaders, educators and his team to address next steps.

"There's no doubt for me that the policy foundation in 213 is as important and transformative today as yesterday," said Johnston.

"I think we have to go back and look at how you try to match these improvements with these investments. Is it one year at a time? A five- or 10-year horizon? Is it through existing revenues or a new revenue source or some combination?

"That's a conversation we have to start with all Coloradans all over again, with the supporters of 66 and opponents."

Meanwhile, Colorado House Republicans unveiled their own 2014 education agenda — largely an la carte selection from SB 213's menu of initiatives that members promise to introduce individually during the next legislative session.

Republicans singled out some elements that attracted bipartisan support before the accompanying tax increase became a deal-breaker: a new rolling student count system; greater school spending transparency; capital construction funding for charter schools; and more funding for English-language learners.

House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, acknowledged that even these items carry a price tag but added that much can be done with existing funds. He estimated that money currently in the state education fund, coupled with higher revenue forecasts, could give lawmakers $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion to work with.

"Everybody and his brother has been commenting on why (Amendment 66) didn't pass," he said. "But now it's about what are we going to do to move forward. Obviously, what we have is broken. Let's see what we can do to make it better."

Although voters proved Tuesday night they want to keep their state tax burden low, Johnston said local investments in education of the kind several districts passed have their limitations.

"The challenge with that," he said, "is that the things people like most about (Amendment 66) — transparency, innovation — only come with state level reforms. If you go local by passing mill levies, some districts will always pass them and some will never pass them. You get huge inequalities in the system."

Kathleen Gebhardt, the lead attorney for plaintiffs in the Lobato school-funding lawsuit, opposed Amendment 66 as insufficient to fix those inequities. The Lobato suit, which argued the state's spending formula for K-12 education fell far short of constitutional standards, won at trial but lost on appeal.

"What you have not heard from any side is that this is a good day for kids," Gebhardt said. "So I do think we have to pay attention to what voters said and go back to the drawing board, as soon as possible. The facts haven't changed. We still have a system that's not meeting children's needs."

In the Ignacio School District, in southwest Colorado, Superintendent Rocco Fuschetto found himself in no worse shape Wednesday than he would have been if Amendment 66 had passed. In fact, he said, his district would have been one of a handful that would have seen per-pupil funding cut by the measure.

"How could I go to our community and say I'd like you to support this amendment, but then get our student revenue cut by $71, and have to increase our mill levy to make up the money?" Fuschetto said. "Am I happy it didn't pass? I'm not. But I think looking ahead, one thing I'll say, if they're going to try this again, please don't cut any funding on any school district."

The defeat of Amendment 66 means that areas such as the Center School District, in the San Luis Valley, will remain "at the low end of the food chain on equity" with regard to funding an overwhelmingly poor student population, said Superintendent George Welsh.

His district would have benefited significantly. Unable to turn to his local tax base to fill funding gaps, he said the district must continue to depend on patchwork grants.

"The problem is, there's no sustainability in that," Welsh said. "But that's the game we play if we're going to give our kids any chance in ZIP code 81125."

He described one after-school reading intervention, paid for with federal grant money, that has yielded strong results. Then the grant ended this year. He likened the situation to having a cure for cancer that you can't afford to deliver.

"I can't expect my people to work for free to deliver that treatment," Welsh said. "But the state of Colorado expects them to. That's the message my staff gets. 'Do it anyway.' And you know what? They will."